Re: Extinction

[John Bois <jbois@umd5.umd.edu>]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
> You understand wrong. I was pointing out that criticizing the bolide argument 
> on the basis of frog survival is inapt.

Maybe it is.  Maybe it isn't.  The various and sundry just so stories that
must be spun to support the bolide-as-dino-killer may all be wrong
also.  The simple
truth is that there is _no_ direct evidence that the bolide did anything
to anything.  The rest is speculation.  But you have insisted (in the
past) that only one flavor of speculation is appropriate, i.e., just so
stories which support the bolide.  And so you use a word like
"probably" as in "probably killed alot of frogs".  This assumes something
that may well not be true.

> "Bolide causing extinction of 
> dinosaurs is dubious because frogs live" is a non sequitur; frogs are not 
> dinosaurs.

So, in other words, the survival of _any_ other animal is irrelevant to
the notion of bolide killing dinosaurs?  This is a gag rule! But it is
necessary to enforce your position: the bolide killed the dinosaurs,
therefore nothing else is relevant

> The bolide could have caused the extinction of all non-avian 
> dinosaurs while letting every single frog survive. There is no necessary 
> connection between dinosaur extinction and frog survival at all.

So the fact that we are almost compeletely in the dark about the effects
of bolide strikes has no bearing on your thought processes?  There may
indeed be a connection _for all we know_.

> And I would expect that the post-impact conditions that 
> led to the demise of the world's dinosaurs...

But this is not known.  Yet you speak it as if it were the truth.  Can't
you make a distinction between (even) strong hypotheses and actual
occurences.  Many professionals are not comfortable with facile
acceptance of this idea.  To them the survival of mammals, crocs, and
birds (and, yes, frogs too) is a challenge to the idea.

>...probably did not serve the
> rest of 
> the frogs very well, either.

The size of the blast is critical.  It could have wiped every
living thing.  Or, it could have hurt nothing (except in the 100km
surrounding).  Or it could have had very complex effects.  You would say
it had to produce the effects we see because it killed the
dinosaurs.  This is circular.

> This can be checked by examining lists of known 
> frog families, genera, and species from around the K-T boundary and seeing 
> which survived across it.

I'd rather not bring evidence into this discussion.